STOP before you make another life changing UPDATE,READ THIS!

[Alsatia01]

I know you have your own style of writing, and I can appreciate that. However, if this suggestion ever did get supported, and thus forwarded, all I would be forwarding would be "Players suggest the Eudaemon "Sell" button be renamed to [insert decided word here], because "Sell" is [insert short phrase to sum up the main point]." The rest gets left behind because there's no way to translate it into something the developer will understand. All of the fluff undermines your efforts here, which is the main point everyone in this thread has been making, though not quite so nicely. Fleshing out a suggestion is fine, but you have to be able to summarize it all down into one line. If more than the one line is needed after that, it's there, but there should still be that one line that everyone can grab onto.

And no, trolling a thread with the intention of attempting to get the thread closed is not something that is allowed. We've spoken about that in pm already, but I will reiterate that when you take a passive-aggressive tone toward people who have given your suggestion feedback, it fuels the fire and the best thing to do is not address it so that a moderator can.

Well I'm glad that I'm not the only one who saw that problem with the posts ( in regard to having a lot of 'fluff' ).

More importantly, whom exactly on this thread has been 'obviously' trolling? So far I've seen nothing but (admittedly vitriolic) perfectly reasonable criticisms with the actual purposed problem/solution.

[MemoryLane]

Well I'm glad that I'm not the only one who saw that problem with the posts ( in regard to having a lot of 'fluff' ).

More importantly, whom exactly on this thread has been 'obviously' trolling? So far I've seen nothing but (admittedly vitriolic) perfectly reasonable criticisms with the actual purposed problem/solution.

I wasn't the one calling anyone a troll. I said trolling a thread with intent to cause closure would not be allowed.

[Alsatia01]

I wasn't the one calling anyone a troll. I said trolling a thread with intent to cause closure would not be allowed.

I apologize, I meant that question toward R27377783.

Forgot to add that part of a quote.

[R27377783]

Well I'm glad that I'm not the only one who saw that problem with the posts ( in regard to having a lot of 'fluff' ).

More importantly, whom exactly on this thread has been 'obviously' trolling? So far I've seen nothing but (admittedly vitriolic) perfectly reasonable criticisms with the actual purposed problem/solution.

This is not the case. Most of the vitriolic criticism have been directed at my ostensible "affiliation" with "political correction" movements which in any case would be my business and not related to the topic. Its also my business and off topic if I like to use alot of "fluff" in my writings. The criticism is also not something that appears in forum rules although it could. I will never "dumb down" a complex suggestion for the sake of argument. If thats whats necessary in THIS community,and I see that it is, then we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

[R27377783]

Threads that have not had replies in months are considered dead. Posting a reply that doesn't really address something new, such as more evidence for an issue that was never resolved, but simply responding to bring the topic back to life, is considered a bumping of an old topic.

The discussion at hand was not a discussion that called for any further evidence but further argumentation to address certain misaligned arguments that confronted my suggestion. You cannot fault me that no progress was made this is due to the positions of the participants not the suggestion itself and could only have been realized through further argumentation. You can't have expected me to predict the inappropriate reactions. Your advice came later. I thought I could move the focus back on the idea itself and away from speculations about my character. Concerning the subject the majority of the respondents decided to "play dumb" as if they didn't understand the correlation. I didn't accept that and refused to keep trying to spell it out to them, because I knew they were just baiting me to try and make the discussion about "us".

I know you have your own style of writing, and I can appreciate that. However, if this suggestion ever did get supported, and thus forwarded, all I would be forwarding would be "Players suggest the Eudaemon "Sell" button be renamed to [insert decided word here], because "Sell" is [insert short phrase to sum up the main point]." The rest gets left behind because there's no way to translate it into something the developer will understand. All of the fluff undermines your efforts here, which is the main point everyone in this thread has been making, though not quite so nicely. Fleshing out a suggestion is fine, but you have to be able to summarize it all down into one line. If more than the one line is needed after that, it's there, but there should still be that one line that everyone can grab onto.

I appreciate this outline and advice. I may take it into consideration next go round.

And no, trolling a thread with the intention of attempting to get the thread closed is not something that is allowed. We've spoken about that in pm already, but I will reiterate that when you take a passive-aggressive tone toward people who have given your suggestion feedback, it fuels the fire and the best thing to do is not address it so that a moderator can.

Will someone please tell this to the user Meikura? He has actually admitted that this was his intention and yet he still is allowed to post and serve as his own agent provocateur on the thread. Its improper for me to tell you how to do your job. I will point out though that, this didn't get addressed directly from the beginning, so I began to in my own way. Active aggression also fuels the fire,passivity results in as you say: "a dead topic", so when it didn't get addressed by moderation that left me only the one strategy. Passive-aggression. This is a legitimate strategy particularly when real aggression is not allowed or counterproductive and passivity is ineffectual.

[R27377783]

Oh boo hoo! Seriously, I don't see how that can be a real life taunt.

not a surprise you haven't demonstrated that you can see or read past your own idiocy. Let me qoute you for the moderation team's sake,since I still don't expect you to "see" it.

Or better yet, what would you do when I say I can sell your piddly a<beep>s on the market?

I have been told much worse by many others in the past, and do I even phase on such? Nope, not a single one.

Firstly that doesn't give you the green light to go ahead and do the same to to others. secondly as usual your FOS, anyone can see your going ape **** over there. There may be programs designed to help people with your kind of problems to learn how to cope.

Your problem is, that you take things way too seriously (and personal). Someone tells me that they are going to plunder me, I'd say "go right ahead" and will work on finding 5-25 members of their guild that I can feed on to recoup my losses (or gain profit since I kept my assets in animals).

1. You don't know what i take seriously or personal. Our discussion on this forum is no real indication of anything really. Thats something you have consistently failed to realize. 2.how you deal with situations is your strategy not mine and its not impressing me so far, I have my own priorities. 3.the situation you describe in the game does not compare to what you said to me in this forum.

When you attack my boy, I told you certain things I will not (along with my wife) have him do; you lost on that part.

I didn't attack your boy. I didn't even no if you had a boy,girl,or child for that matter, all I know is you have family. I invented a scenario involving the game where I thought you could relate to in order demonstrate how ill advised your attitudes and also your real life taunts/threats. It failed because you don't even read the written word.eg In my example I indicated the fictional child goes online without your permission.therefore your parental guidance parameters are irrelevant in this scenario. The only thing making the scenario unrealistic is the age of your child means hes (based on the typical) unlikely to be capable of registering an account on his own..but stranger things have happened.

I can't really blame them if they decided to stick around and put you and your ego in your place.

sure. I'm in my place now.

Now, do me a favor and quit PMing me. I think I had made it clear I want nothing in what you say as I am not going to be regulated for someone's satisfaction and enjoyment. You already know how I celebrate holidays, so there is no need to punch further. You keep doing it, and I am going to report you for harassment. Consider this as my warning to you.

Just please don't block me yet..I have a few more questions, and I still think we can be PM pals even if we don't do so well in the discussion boards.

[Meikura001]

Just please don't block me yet..I have a few more questions, and I still think we can be PM pals even if we don't do so well in the discussion boards.

Okay, that one made me laugh. I got to appreciate your candor.

[Alsatia01]

Its also my business and off topic if I like to use alot of "fluff" in my writings. The criticism is also not something that appears in forum rules although it could.

Uh..... What? You think people critiquing or criticizing peoples ideas should be against the rules? I can only hope that's not what you mean.

I will never "dumb down" a complex suggestion for the sake of argument. If thats whats necessary in THIS community,and I see that it is, then we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

Cutting down on the 'fluff' and 'dumbing down' your suggestions are polar opposites. Making your posts more concise, and then elaborating more is how you make a complex suggestion.

On a side note, if you're going to say that Meikura is trolling this thread and you, and therefore breaking the forum rules - It would be equally valid to say you're breaking the forum rules by sending him multiple unwarranted and unwanted PMs.

1. Do NOT use offensive, unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, hateful, racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable language.

Neither one of you has a great leg to stand on.

[Meikura001]

It's okay, Al. I've done said my piece and I think it's time to withdraw for the sake of any sanity left within me.

[R27377783]

Uh..... What? You think people critiquing or criticizing peoples ideas should be against the rules? I can only hope that's not what you mean.

its Not what I meant..I meant there could be a rule about over-stuffing posts..

Cutting down on the 'fluff' and 'dumbing down' your suggestions are polar opposites. Making your posts more concise, and then elaborating more is how you make a complex suggestion.

you sure have a way of turning opinon in to fact..no you are stylig to the reader.thats how you ARGUE a point..in a "democracy".. .I'm (my opinions,ideas) NOT a democracy..and not subject to change on account of difficult comprehension..or attention span issues. Dictation is a science AND an art..I could suggest it all in poetry formats but I don't think that would help.
also, I don't write "fluff"...thats from your/the reader's ADHD riddled perspectives. I know I've been known to repeat the same point with approximate wording twice in the same writing though..in case theres a language or logic base barrier. I call it rephrasing,reiteration..also sometimes its for strategic placement of the same point.

On a side note, if you're going to say that Meikura is trolling this thread and you, and therefore breaking the forum rules - It would be equally valid to say you're breaking the forum rules by sending him multiple unwarranted and unwanted PMs.

assuming their unwanted still,plz link to a rule about it. haha you really think you know EVERYTHING don't ya Alt? Hubris is a form of ignorance too ya know. I do admit I DID assume "trolling" was against the rules.

I can only hope that's not what you mean.

its not what I meant..I meant there could be a rule about over-stuffing posts..

[AdaJames]

Actually, it is not.

It is actually a well known debating fallacy whereby you throw a wall of text/words at your opponent and hope that he would not be able to weed through it and find the flaws in your argument. It is a standard technique of the whole greenie movement, which is not surprising given that I have mentioned before that you exhibit all of the hallmarks of one.

That technique usually follows another, where they attempt to withhold information by using high-sounding but empty excuses, like "I will not let you see my methodology and data because all you do is try to discredit the most important thing since sliced bread".

I will leave it up to others to judge whether both techniques were used by you.

[R27377783]

Actually, it is not.

It is actually a well known debating fallacy whereby you throw a wall of text/words at your opponent and hope that he would not be able to weed through it and find the flaws in your argument. It is a standard technique of the whole greenie movement, which is not surprising given that I have mentioned before that you exhibit all of the hallmarks of one.

That technique usually follows another, where they attempt to withhold information by using high-sounding but empty excuses, like "I will not let you see my methodology and data because all you do is try to discredit the most important thing since sliced bread".

I will leave it up to others to judge whether both techniques were used by you.

That would be logical assumption..if I were "here to argue"..but then it would be contradictory too because if that were the case I'd be willing to expand the argument into the nuance festival you and AL are asking me to. Lets just assume I am a confirmed card carrying "greenie" as your suggesting...what of it? Whats your point/how is it relevant here?

[AdaJames]

If you are not here to argue, you are here to preach. In that case, this is not the forum for it.

This is a forum for DISCUSSION, not for preaching. If you do not wish to discuss, the door is over there. Don't let it hit you on the way out.

[R27377783]

If you are not here to argue, you are here to preach. In that case, this is not the forum for it.

This is a forum for DISCUSSION, not for preaching. If you do not wish to discuss, the door is over there. Don't let it hit you on the way out.

Another rulemaker eh? where is the rule against "preaching" anyway..my original post successfully demonstrates why I'm here, the proceeding argumentation came about as an attempt to realign what I thought to be misinterpretation until I realized it was just trolling an unshared opinion. Then it became an anti-trolling crusade which hasn't panned out. Since then I've been arguing thats its not a topic I'm willing to argue about. Everyone seems to be trying to convince me to argue about it..no.

[AdaJames]

So you basically said your piece. And you don't want to talk more about it.

Why are you still here?

And yes, there is a rule against preaching insofar as this is not the board for it. It says so right at the top in the name of the board. What you are saying is that it is OK to talk about the lastest Games of Thrones bloopers in a serious political discussion board because, hey, no one said you can't talk about that!

What are you? 3?